To filter lens or not?

chouglez

chouglez

Messages
3,816
Edit My Images
No
Recently bought a 70-200 mm F2.8 MK II and heart says to put a filter in front of the lens element and mind says don't. Need some advice about filters without compromising the image quality.
 
If you are meaning one to stay on all the time, I'd say no, apart from maybe weather/sand sealing, but if you need a filter for a certain use/effect eg CPL, then yes.
 
Pointless and in most cases just exaggerate flare. Just a sell up for camera shops - never filtered any of my lenses (35mm, MFD, LF) and glass as good as the day purchased.
 
I agree with OldCarlos. I don't use a filter to protect the front element from an impact, however I do always use a lens hood.
 
Personally I would always fir a quality UV filter. In my opinion a quality filter does not have any noticeable effect on IQ, reduces haze and most importantly protects the front element. It is much cheaper to replace a filter than have the lens repaired.
 
Bob_a said:
I agree with OldCarlos. I don't use a filter to protect the front element from an impact, however I do always use a lens hood.
Click to expand...

I have had a filter save a lens a Sigma 24mm F1.8 dropped about four feet onto planings the filter shattered the lenshood snapped but the front element lived.

For 35mm / small format digitail for frequenty used lenses I tend to use a protective filter especailly if at the coast in high wind salt / sand being nasty stuff however if shooting into the sun I'll probablly take it off.

On MF or LF never but then they tend to get handled a lot more carefully.

A lot of petal hoods I find are not always especailly effective and strategacly positioning a hand can be more effective with LF the usually quoted option is to use a darkslide
 
abbandon said:
I have had a filter save a lens a Sigma 24mm F1.8 dropped about four feet onto planings the filter shattered the lenshood snapped but the front element lived.

For 35mm / small format digitail for frequenty used lenses I tend to use a protective filter especailly if at the coast in high wind salt / sand being nasty stuff however if shooting into the sun I'll probablly take it off.

On MF or LF never but then they tend to get handled a lot more carefully.

A lot of petal hoods I find are not always especailly effective and strategacly positioning a hand can be more effective with LF the usually quoted option is to use a darkslide
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own level of comfort, which is why every time I've seen a poll with this subject it's been close to a tie. :)

I've been using an SLR since 1975 and have never had a lens bumped in a way that's left the smallest of marks on the front element. There is no way I'm going to buy expensive glass and have image quality degraded, potentially by flare, due to the very small chance of damage. For me, if I do damage a front element I'll just send the lens in and get it replaced. Lens hoods have worked fine for me, although in forty years I have also never dropped a lens. Agree about petal hoods, for UWA lenses they don't help at all to protect.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago i bought filters and in a none too scientific test setup a tripod and shot various lens with and without filters in normal daylight conditions. Even pixel peeping i couldn't see a discernible difference in image quality, contrast etc. So i've continued to buy filters for my lens and use them when out and about, i recall Canon spec is weather sealing on an L len isn't complete without a filter attached.
 
Grumps1974 said:
Personally I would always fir a quality UV filter. In my opinion a quality filter does not have any noticeable effect on IQ, reduces haze and most importantly protects the front element. It is much cheaper to replace a filter than have the lens repaired.
Click to expand...

A UV filter on digital SLRs will most certainly not reduce haze at all

If you want more protection in harsh environments etc then yes theyre handy. I personally never use them unless it is for photographic effect like an ND filter

Why spend all that money on nice lenses with highly complex optical designs and high grade glass and add another bit that was never meant to be there at the end of them
 
Sharky said:
Many years ago i bought filters and in a none too scientific test setup a tripod and shot various lens with and without filters in normal daylight conditions. Even pixel peeping i couldn't see a discernible difference in image quality, contrast etc. So i've continued to buy filters for my lens and use them when out and about, i recall Canon spec is weather sealing on an L len isn't complete without a filter attached.
Click to expand...

Personally experience when shooting video with/without filters I see a difference in sharpness even just in live view when focusing (magnified manual focus)
 
If I'm in an environment where there is lots of dust, sand or indeed moisture then my 70-200mm II may get a filter.

However the hood is very robust on that lens and that does all the protecting I need it to.

And I use that lens in what can be an incredibly hostile environment for photographic gear.
 
I only use a protective filter if I'm out in harsh coastal locations.

I do keep the lens hood on for protection though.
 
I use to put UV filters on all my lens but now I use no filters at all because the UV filter introduce more problem for me like glare or green blob.

I still keep hold of the filter and will only use them in condition like rain, muddy places, sand etc.
 
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths - Link.
 
Thank you all for all you suggestions & advice. I shall leave the filter in my camera bag just in case :)
 
Sharky said:
Many years ago i bought filters and in a none too scientific test setup a tripod and shot various lens with and without filters in normal daylight conditions. Even pixel peeping i couldn't see a discernible difference in image quality, contrast etc. So i've continued to buy filters for my lens and use them when out and about, i recall Canon spec is weather sealing on an L len isn't complete without a filter attached.
Click to expand...

But that would depend on the location of the sun. Filters can introduce flare if pointed in the right direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top